First and foremost, a disclaimer: I’m not an Eagles fan (nor am I not an Eagles fan) and have no intention of throwing anyone under the bus as we explore these topics (and more like this in the future)

But, what I am interested in is the psychology of sports – and why in some cases, like this year’s Philadelphia Eagles, the psychology seems to be a bit off and limit the ceiling of the team. In coming editions, we’ll explore things like the psychology of getting ready for an NFL playoff game, or how to maintain consistency in March Madness.

The story of avoidance motivation

The storyline of the Eagles playing a bit uptight has persisted since Week 12 when the team started down a rough patch of losing 5 out of 6 games. Last year’s Super Bowl runner-up looked destined to make another run before then and quickly deteriorated after a blowout loss to the 49ers.

As Troy Aikman (who may have a lingering bias here) pointed out during the broadcast:

‍

This team looked defeated when the game began.

So what happened?

Playing not to lose

The main psychology at play here is the principle of avoidance motivation, or, in sports talk: playing not to lose.

When we’re motivated to avoid a particular outcome, our behavior is guided by fear. Fear, functionally, makes us tight, restricts our focus, and directs our attention toward threats versus opportunities.

You saw this playing out during the game. If you’re an Eagles fan, chances are you read about it during the season as the fanfare and excitement around the team turned tumultuous. The team shifted from free and playing to win to playing to lose.

Here’s how playing not to lose affects you:

• Reduced performance. Avoidance motivation is linked to reduced performance, resource depletion, and lower well-being (especially if it persists over time, like weeks 13 to the playoffs).
• Reduced learning. Avoidance motivation doesn’t direct you toward what to do, it directs you to what not to do. It’s much harder to learn what not to do than what to do. The range of things to avoid is generally much larger than the range of things to accomplish.
• Limited performance under pressure. Under pressure, when avoidance goals are activated, performance is significantly undermined (this is a robust effect demonstrated across several performance tasks).
• Taxed cognitive systems. Playing not to lose requires intense attention to detail and a vigilance that’s hard to maintain over time. As a result, it takes a ton of mental effort relative to playing to win. And, we’re more likely to perseverate when we’ve made a mistake, doubling the cost of that intensive effort over time. Mistakes are inevitable.
• Undermines creativity. If you’re hoping to improvise occasionally on your way to a win – maybe you need to leave the pocket and scramble or draw a play up on the sideline – avoidance motivation is likely to limit that. If you’re playing not to lose and you do improvise, it requires extra mental effort.

Unfortunately, playing more and more uptight as each week went by was systematically undermining the players’ performance. From the outside looking in, my guess would be that signs of vitality or joy were also looked down upon or not welcomed in the spirit of being serious about losing. As a result, the environment also knocked out some of the very things the team would need to be successful.

Leadership and playing not to lose

There’s also a leadership and social dimension to playing not to lose.

When a team is trying hard to avoid bad outcomes, they’re oriented toward less effective behaviors and primed to underperform.

Here’s how leadership behaviors that promote avoidance motivation can undermine team performance:

• Poor communication. Leadership that’s motivating through avoidance tends to have more difficulty conveying clear performance objectives, which leads to unmet expectations and lower team performance.
• Increased conflict. Task conflicts – disagreement about how we do things – can turn into relationship conflicts – how people get along – when they take place in the context of an environment playing not to lose. The end result is worse team decision-making.
• Negative psychology. We’ve touched on this a bit, but leaders associated with avoidance motivation tend to produce poorer performers, both on the field and in terms of well-being. Of course, worse performance from individuals generally means worse performance from the team.
• Increases distraction. Leaders motivating through avoidance tend to engage in behaviors that distract team members from their tasks and goals, typically by orienting them away from what’s important (what success looks like) and toward things that are harder to process (what not to do).

The alternative: Playing to win

On the other side of avoidance motivation is “approach motivation.” Though it can be challenging in the face of defeat or when we’re worried about a particular outcome, approach motivation is what we’d like to instill in our teams. It’s the proverbial playing to win.

Playing to win tends to lead to better mood, decision-making, and social performance (like being a good teammate). And, some data suggests people with approach motivation learn and perform better.

To instill more approach motivation, we want to focus on:

• What we want people to accomplish. By orienting people toward a goal and target, we help them identify what to move toward, versus what to avoid.
• Providing clarity. When people are motivated by avoidance, what’s often clear is only what not to do. To generate approach motivation, we need to be clear about the standards and what to do to be successful.
• Keep a positive attitude. Though it’s never fun to lose, creating an atmosphere where losing is something to fear and avoid, rather than learn from, process, and move on is likely to generate avoidance motivation. To keep your team focused on playing to win, deal with the pain of the loss, identify what can be improved, and set the focus on winning the next game (versus not losing).

There’s a complex relationship between motivation and human behavior, and avoidance vs. approach motivation is only one dimension to consider in why a team might underperform. However, you can see how consistently playing not to lose systematically undermines team performance and ultimately, leads to an otherwise great team taking an early exit.

If you want to reach your goals, your best bet is to play to win.

References

Booth, B., & Cates, K. (2012). Growing Managers: Moving from Team Member to Team Leader. . https://doi.org/10.1108/case.kellogg.2016.000143.

Roskes, M., Elliot, A., & Dreu, C. (2014). Why Is Avoidance Motivation Problematic, and What Can Be Done About It?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 133 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414524224.

Elliot, A. (2006). The Hierarchical Model of Approach-Avoidance Motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11031-006-9028-7.